Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
01-13-2004, 07:05 PM | #1 | |
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
A Truly Proper Opening Text?
I noticed recently, as I idly opened up a newer copy of The Fellowship of the Ring, a text by a Mr. Peter S. Beagle. I never noticed it before, as I have always read the first American publication additions. And, I actually read it (which is quite an accomplishment for me, as I like to skip over anything other than Prologues...slothful am I). It gave me the feeling that Peter S. Beagle was not the kind of man to be writing an opening text for a novel of Tolkien. The man may praise Tolkien, but in just this short three paragraphs, he already seems to display some blatant opinions that do not really belong. I believe his last statement is especially questionable:
Quote:
All of this I say, though what I read and how I understand those words. And I am not at all good at analyzing these types of things, so I was wondering if someone could straighten me out. I feel like I am making a biased assumption (I am not aware of who exactly Peter S. Beagle is -- yes, I know, I don't get out much: pity me, and so I rightly feel that I am being biased), but I cannot help but make it!! -Durelin Note: I searched for threads on Peter S. Beagle and such, and found none. If my searching skills are at a loss, I apologize profusely for giving you this inconvenience to delete. |
|
01-13-2004, 07:31 PM | #2 |
Deathless Sun
|
I'm sure that many people in this world believe that many historical events were done for entirely the wrong reasons. For example, why do we celebrate or acknowledge the "discovery" of the Americas by Christopher Columbus, when in fact, it was ostensibly discovered thousands of years earlier by the Native Americans? Why do we consider him a hero, when the greatest thing that bloke did was wipe out whole races of Native Americans? Are we to honor murderers? What were the conquistadors? They were murderers who used the names of gold and god as excuses. Why do we honor them?
Part of the beauty of Lord of the Rings is that the "explorers," or heroes, are ordinary beings (for that world at least). Their only intention is to save the world that they are living in, and prevent war from devastating their homelands. They are willing to even die for that purpose. Now tell me, aren't those the true heroes that we should be honoring? I'm not saying that we should have an International Fellowship Day, but we need to start honoring the right heroes for the right reasons. For example, why can't we celebrete what Joan of Arc did? Her deeds were far greater than Columbus's seeming discovery. She gave up her life so that France would be free. Shouldn't we honor her for that? During the Crusades, when the fortress of Acre was being besieged by the Saracens, every single Templar in the city gave up their lives so that their loved ones could escape. Every last defender, wounded or hale, fought to the death, in a conflict reminiscent of the Fall of Gondolin. Tell me, why do we not honor them for that?
__________________
But Melkor also was there, and he came to the house of Fëanor, and there he slew Finwë King of the Noldor before his doors, and spilled the first blood in the Blessed Realm; for Finwë alone had not fled from the horror of the Dark. |
01-13-2004, 07:53 PM | #3 | ||||||
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, but we don't live in a very honorable world. |
||||||
01-13-2004, 08:09 PM | #4 |
Deathless Sun
|
Are you willing to overlook all the genocides perpetrated by Columbus and his followers in the name of religion and glory?
If Columbus had the courage to sail off into relatively uncharged waters, it was for greed. He just wanted to find a quicker route to the Indies, so that Spain would get rich quicker. That seeming courage stemmed from pure greed.
__________________
But Melkor also was there, and he came to the house of Fëanor, and there he slew Finwë King of the Noldor before his doors, and spilled the first blood in the Blessed Realm; for Finwë alone had not fled from the horror of the Dark. |
01-13-2004, 08:38 PM | #5 | ||
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
Quote:
Quote:
-Durelin |
||
01-13-2004, 08:44 PM | #6 |
Night In Wight Satin
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 4,043
|
This needs to get back all the way to Middle-earth immediately.
__________________
The Barrow-Wight |
01-13-2004, 08:56 PM | #7 | |
Haunted Halfling
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: an uncounted length of steps--floating between air molecules
Posts: 841
|
Quote:
Cheers, Lyta <font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:56 PM January 13, 2004: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]
__________________
“…she laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth; and there is her green grave, until the world is changed, and all the days of her life are utterly forgotten by men that come after, and elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the Sea.” |
|
01-13-2004, 11:55 PM | #8 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
I do not want to get into the politics here, but I wanted to share who Peter Beagle was. He was a fairly noted fantasy writer -- author of A Fine and Private Place and The Last Unicorn (two very fine books), and was also one of two men who wrote the script for the Bashiki movie in 1978.
See the quote below on his other contributions a la Tolkien. Quote:
For those of us who were Tolkien fans in the sixties and seventies, Peter Beagle is a familiar name and face.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
|
01-15-2004, 02:13 PM | #9 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
|
and who did the native americans displace when they migrated? or did they invade? JRRT wanted a mythology for anglo-saxons, whose land was conquered by normans. Who was displaced when the saxons migrated (or invaded or conquered).... see where the columbus argument leads? ignorance
|
01-15-2004, 05:03 PM | #10 |
Spectre of Decay
|
Actually Tolkien's intent to write a mythology that he could dedicate to England was only the starting point. He said himself "my crest has long since fallen".
The intention was always to write a mythology for England. Not for the Anglo-Saxons, but for modern England, which thanks to the advent of Christianity and the Norman conquest has lost all of its Germanic legends. Tolkien wanted an alternative to the Celtic legends of the Britons, since those are rightly the heritage of Wales. I would argue that invasion and displacement are never right, although they are an historical reality. We can lament the usurpation of someone's land whilst still admitting that our own cultures have grown out of such displacement. Certainly Tolkien was averse to imperialism per se. In letter #77, he wrote: "I should have hated the Roman Empire in its day (as I do), and remained a patriotic Roman citizen, while preferring a free Gaul and seeing good in Carthaginians." He was no less disapproving of the British Empire. In Letter #53 he wrote: "I love England (not Great Britain and certainly not the British Commonwealth)". It seems likely to me that the anti-imperial themes in Tolkien's works, particularly as they relate to Númenor, are therefore quite deliberate; which would make a foreword that criticises cultural expansionism reasonably appropriate. Unfortunately many of the great explorers have been motivated by profit and have done a great deal of damage, but we shouldn't forget that but for them the world would be a different and more divided place. Perhaps this is what Tolkien meant when he wrote: "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." Perhaps this is an insight into Tolkien's view of God.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? |
01-15-2004, 07:36 PM | #11 | ||
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
A thousand apologies to you, BW! I am, unfortunately, a sucker to debates, especially historical and philisophical debates (if not on too high a level of thought); and, even more unfortunate is my very opinionated personality.
Lyta - I'm not sure about that, but I would not trust my judgement on it. Thank you Child! I had heard he was a fantasy author, but did not know if he was even a contemporary of Tolkien. Quote:
Quote:
Woops. Away from the topic. At least I have stuck to Tolkien, though, this time. Does anyone know for sure when exactly the forward was published as a part of the novel? Now I'm really just curious. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] |
||
01-15-2004, 10:11 PM | #12 |
Candle of the Marshes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Flyover Country
Posts: 780
|
Squatter - just wanted to say, nicely put. The bit about "Thou, Melkor" reminds me of Aquinas's dictum that it is one of the greatest miracles that "out of evil cometh good." I don't like expansionism for expansionism's sake, and treasure-hunting isn't perhaps the noblest of callings, but they've had a lot of (doubtless unintended) good consequences. Beagle has every right to talk about how Tolkien was anti-expansionist and didn't like the idea of empires; what I think got to Durelin was the fact that Beagle was picking some rather inflammatory examples that you might be able to argue weren't necessarily ones that Tolkien would have approved of. The "murderers carrying crosses" makes it sound like every religious missionary that we honour is a rogue and that they should never have done what they did. First of all, not all of them were bad; many sincerely believed and sacrificed everything to that cause. Secondly, Tolkien himself was a very strict Catholic and would probably not have considered Christian proseletyzing (sp?) to be a bad thing, although he might have a few words to say about the manner in which it's done. But by lumping those examples, Beagle makes it sound as if these biases are present in Tolkien's own worldview.
And to add a few things just because I'm pedantic: Durelin, Columbus already knew the earth was round; it had been known for thousands of years - when Dante posited the position of purgatory, the idea he came up with presupposed a round earth. They just thought it was a lot smaller than it was. Finwe, I think you might be going a little too far in the other direction. What people honour when they honour Columbus isn't so much the man himself as the discovery he made, and for good or ill his was the discovery that made an impact on the entire world. The Norse had gotten to Iceland and even parts of eastern Canada many centuries before, but they didn't capitalize on it, and eventually their settlements died out and left no permanent mark or open door to Europe. And as for Columbus himself - the man was just looking for a trade route, it wasn't like he had bad intentions. (I know, the road to hell and all that). And for wiping out the native population; despite what people may say, there was no large-scale planned genocide. Disease was the main killer, and there was no way anyone could have predicted it. Supposing the shoe had been on the other foot, I doubt that the American natives would have been much gentler with the Europeans. There was a great deal of fear on both sides - why not? They'd never seen anything like this - and they acted as two flawed groups of people tend to act. Sorry about the long write; I just wanted to convey that it's not so much a black-and-white issue. /Kalimac descends from soapbox. LATER: Edited to get names right - I got confused and put Doug's name instead of Squatter's. Sorry, Squatter! <font size=1 color=339966>[ 1:48 AM January 16, 2004: Message edited by: Kalimac ]
__________________
Father, dear Father, if you see fit, We'll send my love to college for one year yet Tie blue ribbons all about his head, To let the ladies know that he's married. |
01-16-2004, 11:48 PM | #13 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 99
|
Durelin - Your comments on the Saracen. Well the Crusades' objectives were for conquest you must understand, so it was all fair play imho. Why aren't we honoring the Saracens for their courage in defending their homeland? See, simple fact is, humans are flawed and every chapter of human history contains bloodshed.
|
01-17-2004, 01:59 AM | #14 | |
Essence of Darkness
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Evermore
Posts: 1,420
|
Quote:
The other thing about Columbus (early Spanish explorer/merchant) was equally innacurate and puzzling... anyway, rather a couple of mistakes there, my friend. |
|
01-17-2004, 11:42 AM | #15 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
Ahem! Back to Tolkien, please - let's keep the thread away from general political and historic discussion.
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
02-19-2004, 06:29 PM | #16 | |
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
Kalimac: You're absolutely right! It was just the comments such as that, including the one about the horrid 1950s (odd), that made me more than a bit...wary.
I come to resurrect this thread, as I have recently found something Tolkien himself wrote in his own introduction to The Fellowship of the Ring. Quote:
Now, after finding the quote above, doubt grew almost to a certainty that Tolkien has been unfairly labeled, as are so many people, alive or deceased. Unless, of course, 'anti-imperialistic' views can be found in other writings, of which I am certainly not all that aware of. Still, I will have trouble believing this until a clear definition of 'anti-imperialism' is given. But, I have had many certainties shattered easily before. So, I ask if anyone else believes that 'anti-imperialist' is the correct label for Tolkien, that they should inform me of the basis of this, and give me a definition for 'anti-imperialism'. (Sorry about all the quotations...couldn't help myself!) -Durelin Oh, and let's forget the conquistadors and Sarcens, shall we? Thanks a bunch... I started it, I know...truly sorry. Though I must say, some excellent points on Columbus and such, Kalimac. Please, forgive me for my mistake. Last edited by Durelin; 02-19-2004 at 06:34 PM. |
|
02-21-2004, 08:16 PM | #17 |
Spectre of Decay
|
From dictionary.com: Imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The system, policies, or practices of such a government. From the Oxford English Dictionary: "anti-: ...opposite, against, in exchange, instead, rivalling..." For a man who openly stated in his letters that he disliked empires; and who portrayed the Númenoreans' gradual fall partly by having them begin to adopt an imperialist philosophy, 'anti-imperialist' seems like a fair description. Of course, it's by no means complete, but I think that it does sum up his views on empires. The author of that introduction would not be the first to hijack the ideas of a novelist and use them to promote a personal agenda. Yes, his views are extreme, but they're not incompatible with Tolkien's. Personally I think that he gives imperialism too much space in that foreword, and that he could have been a little less confrontational; but clearly he wanted to make a point: that we honour people for actions without really thinking what those acts entailed. He is not wrong to do this, but in my opinion he ought to do so somewhere else. Tolkien was against imperialism and cultural domination, but not so much so that it is absolutely at the centre of his work. It should have been enough to note that Tolkien disapproved of the British Empire, draw in a point about the changing attitude of the Númenoreans to the Hither Lands and move on to another theme. Anything else says more about the writer of the foreword than it does about the author of the book.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? Last edited by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh; 02-21-2004 at 08:20 PM. |
02-22-2004, 10:56 AM | #18 | |
Estelo dagnir, Melo ring
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,063
|
Quote:
Thank you for that definition. Now that I know the definition that you stand on, I can understand why Tolkien could be called anti-imperial. Though, when you say Tolkien was against empires, we could wonder what empires are, in definition, as well. Must empires call themselves empires to be empires, must they expand territorially, etc. But everyone has their own definitions, and I won't ask for another one from you, Squatter. Thanks for that most precise explanation! -Durelin |
|
|
|